Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Induced self-destruction
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale The term is apparently completely made up and involves pure speculation. Unless this term can be traced to a production source and converted into a RW-article, it should be deleted. BG notes at artificial intelligence and/or android could be included. Kennelly (talk) 12:33, December 21, 2016 (UTC) Discussion *'Oppose'. This is no different than the numerous articles on "battles" that lack formal names. This phenomenon deserves discussion, and I'm open to different names, but this shouldn't just go away. 31dot (talk) 09:43, December 22, 2016 (UTC) *'Oppose'. It's a thing, whether or not it has a proper name. Did any character ever give it a name other than "talking something/one to death"? --LauraCC (talk) 16:52, December 22, 2016 (UTC) *'Delete'. This takes a storytelling cliche and through synthesis declares it an recognized in-universe topic, but Memory Alpha articles are not original research. It's not like articles on unnamed battles, it's like having an article on being saved at the last possible moment. Though maybe the core of the article might be condensed into a modest background note for artificial intelligence, as it would be a shame to completely lose such a well-researched list. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:07, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :No vote but wouldn't this be akin to self-destruct? It could be a merge possibility to make an 'induced' subsection there, where both nonsentient and sentient AI machines and programs could be convinced (or programmed, its a fine line) to self-destruct. it is a topic, but maybe not an important enough topic to deserve a complicated and contrived article title -- Captain MKB 18:48, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::It's the opposite of a self-destruct. A self-destruct is is defined by being intended, whereas what's discussed here is catastrophic failure, no more programed in then you could get a warp core to breach by imputing garbage instructions. The "Induced" in the title is meant to mean induced by someone else, not by the robot self. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:22, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :::What is the original research here? No conclusions are being drawn about anything, it is just documenting examples of this phenomenon that doesn't have an official name. 31dot (talk) 20:40, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Synthesis: taking a few similar events and concluding writing an in-universe article on a "phenomenon" that was never recognized as such in-universe. Compare to how there's an undeniable trend of redshirts dying, but having an in-universe article on that phenomenon would still be problematic. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:12, December 24, 2016 (UTC) ::::The main problem here is that it's recognizing a real-world trope as a thing which can be/is deliberately done, a maneuver if you will. Perhaps a merge with logic or Maneuver? --LauraCC (talk) 20:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Admin resolution One vote for deletion, two opposing votes. If the content of the article or a possible merge should be, please discuss this on the talk page. Article kept per discussion. Tom (talk) 09:37, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Induced self-destruction